Abortion rate drops to lowest level since Roe

posted at 10:41 am on February 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

That’s the good news, but the question is why. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute released its findings last week, showing that the abortion rate has dropped 13% since 2008, and is now only slightly higher than it was after the Supreme Court declared abortion to be a doctor‘s right. Guttmacher believes it to be the cause of more universally available and increasingly effective contraception:

The study did not examine the reasons for the drop. But the authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms.

They also noted the economy as a contributing factor, because people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times. But they did not credit the recent wave of state laws restricting access to abortion, because most of those took effect in 2011 or later.

Those restrictions will surely have an impact on the numbers going forward, said Rachel K. Jones, a senior researcher at Guttmacher and lead researcher on the paper.

“If the abortion rate continues to drop, we can’t assume it’s all due to positive factors” such as better adherence to contraceptives, she said, calling the laws passed in 22 states “onerous.”

Color me a bit skeptical on this explanation. The CDC did a long-range study on unplanned pregnancies (1980-2008) which found 99% of all sexually-active women wishing to avoid pregnancy had used contraception, although — and this is the key — not always effectively. The use of injectables and other longer-range contraception arrived well before 2008, especially IUDs, an abortifacient in use for decades. There hasn’t been a revolutionary discovery in contraception since 2008 and the end of this study, which would tend to suggest that the answer lies at least in part elsewhere.

In a press release this morning, the pro-life group Concerned Women for America declare victory in part through new legislation, and in part through greater education and expansion of the pro-life message:

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, issued the following statement:

“The bottom line is that Americans and specifically women have become increasingly pro-life. The pro-life message resonates especially with young women who have grown up seeing their own sonogram pictures. The debate on whether or not a child in the womb is a part of our human family is settled science. Concerned Women for America will continue to work to protect women and their babies through education, better options for mothers, and better laws.”

“This Guttmacher report bends over backwards in trying to deny that record-setting pro-life legislation has made tremendous strides in curbing abortions in the United States. Further, the authors try to convince the American public that suddenly couples are using contraception better and timing the spacing of their children better, all the while denying the concrete data showing that abstinence education is improving the future for the nation’s teens and common sense legislation is exposing the profit-centered motivation of the abortion industry. Our young women are benefiting as fewer are engaging in too-early sex, fewer are choosing abortion, fewer doctors are willing to do abortions, and more clinics are closing.”

My colleague Peter Weber at The Week thinks this should be cheered by all sides, and calls for a truce in the culture wars:

Fewer abortions is something just about everybody can cheer, especially if the reason behind the drop isn’t contentious. What constitutes “contentious?” Anti-abortion advocates might frown on an increase in the Plan B morning-after pill, which prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg if taken soon after sex; the abortion-rights side would decry a drop caused by decreased access to abortion providers. …

So anti-abortion groups oppose medication-induced abortion and abortion rights groups oppose the increase in restrictions on abortion. Both sides — if only for this one moment — should find plenty to celebrate in this drop in the abortion rate. Not exactly peace in our time, but cause, certainly, for a brief pause in the thorniest battle of the culture war.

That’s unlikely, because this isn’t really a “culture war” item the way medicinal marijuana or even gay marriage is. The key question here isn’t the preservation of cultural norms, but of recognizing human life and its right to exist. In fact, it’s a clash of definitions; one side uses science to distinguish human life, while the other side measures it by convenience to others. That’s the core conflict here, and the reason there won’t be a “truce” just because we’re not snuffing out quite as many human lives last year as in the past. This debate will continue, and science will continue to make it a very uncomfortable debate for those who want human life to be disposable.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Both sides — if only for this one moment — should find plenty to celebrate in this drop in the abortion rate.

The radical left pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood have no desire to see a drop in the abortion rate. As Rush has often said, abortion is the sacrament of the religion of liberalism. Not only is it Planned Parenthood’s cash cow, but it is also in line with their goal on everything from destroying our culture to reducing the population. “Safe, legal, and rare” has never been true. And it’s why the term “pro-abortion” is the accurate one. The left believes that abortion is the best decision a woman can make.

The key question here isn’t the preservation of cultural norms, but of recognizing human life and its right to exist.

Our government was instituted to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, including the right to LIFE itself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…

What we are seeing remains the vision of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the other progressives who support eugenics and hold the people, in particular, minorities, in utter contempt. They are little more than tools, means to an end, for the progressives. The state is what is important, not individuals.

It IS time for abortion- an elective medical procedure- to go back to the clinical realm and out of the meat-market commodity industry it is now. It was where it resided before Roe v. Wade (Most states DID have legalized abortion- in THAT realm. It was legal, safe AND RARE! A LAST RESORT option and something to be avoided; NOT something your shrug off.)

one side uses science to distinguish human life, while the other side measures it by convenience to others.

That is not where the divide exists, Ed. Everyone agrees the embryo is a human embryo. The disagreement is as to whether or not the human embryo is a person (human being), and, as it develops, whether or not the human fetus with fingers and toes and a brain is a person.

Characterizing the other side as being anti-science because they disagree with you on the philosophical question of what constitutes personhood makes you sound demagogic. The disagreement here is not regarding the science.

The drop in the abortion comes along with a drop in birth rate. This does suggests that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. Maybe it is the economy driving the drop? But I am still glad that the women were able to get the abortion they wanted. This notion that thoughtless cells which possess a unique sequence of human DNA are someway more morally important than a turnip is most strange and unfortunate.

This notion that thoughtless cells which possess a unique sequence of human DNA are someway more morally important than a turnip is most strange and unfortunate.

thuja on February 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM

It is not strange at all. People who want a child start thinking of it being their child as soon as they know she is pregnant. This is a good thing.

So, socially speaking, that embryo is a child as of implantation. People who are used to thinking about their child that way are going to have difficulty conceiving of any other way to see any human embryo. Your way of seeing the embryo feels morally sick to them. You want to take the humanity away from their child.

This may sound like something to just shrug off as being a human confusion, but it is not nearly so simple. Do you want a man who impregnates a woman to feel responsible for the child?

The way we currently do things where the woman can kill it for her convenience but she can also decide the man is to be “punished with a baby” is what is really bizarre.

they (and you if you support their fallacious reasoning) are anti-science because we are developing technology all the time to keep developing children alive at all stages in development. There are surgeries done in-utero to save the unborn child’s life, not murder him. Leftists worship at the altar of abortion because they believe their life is more valuable than any other. It’s also why they try and use class warfare to incite people. Who cares about that nondescript stranger when you should have a new big screen TV on his dime. Same concept.

Everyone agrees the embryo is a human embryo. The disagreement is as to whether or not the human embryo is a person (human being), and, as it develops, whether or not the human fetus with fingers and toes and a brain is a person…

The disagreement here is not regarding the science.

fadetogray on February 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

In your opinion, at what point does the embryo/fetus/baby constitute a person?

Please give your specific, measurable, scientific reply.

In my opinion, there are only two indisputably specific points in a pregnancy… the two endpoints:
The beginning of the pregnancy (conception)
The end of the pregnancy (birth)

Everything else is a continuum in between, as the child develops in its mother’s womb and needs only time to develop to the point of viability. Any midpoint that you may choose (as the dividing line between not human life vs. human life) is arbitary…

Your life is legally recorded as having started at birth, but your body began growing at the moment of your conception.

one side uses science to distinguish human life, while the other side measures it by convenience to others.

That is not where the divide exists, Ed. Everyone agrees the embryo is a human embryo. The disagreement is as to whether or not the human embryo is a person (human being), and, as it develops, whether or not the human fetus with fingers and toes and a brain is a person.

Characterizing the other side as being anti-science because they disagree with you on the philosophical question of what constitutes personhood makes you sound demagogic. The disagreement here is not regarding the science.

fadetogray on February 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

So the side that ignores the science is NOT anti-science?

If it’s anti-science to reject evolution and anti-science to reject global warming, then there is no way you can logically reject where the science is extremely clear and not be anti-science.

In your opinion, at what point does the embryo/fetus/baby constitute a person?

Please give your specific, measurable, scientific reply.

………..

ITguy on February 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Personhood is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science can be used to better understand the physical reality off of which one bases one’s philosophical outlook, but what constitutes a person is not decided by science.

My philosophical view is that in terms of society recognizing its personhood and protecting the fetus in the form of forcing the woman to carry it to term, the fetus should be regarded as a person at the beginning of the development of the brain.

However, parents can recognize its personhood anytime after conception, and society should consider that valid.

Also (burying the lede), I think it is damaging to a society to not regard a woman’s choice to engage in procreative behavior (sex) as taking responsibility for the new life that may result as a consequence even before the life has become a person.

Anti-abortion advocates might frown on an increase in the Plan B morning-after pill, which prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg if taken soon after sex;

This quote is incorrect. If it were, anti-abortion advocates wouldn’t have a problem with Plan B. Plan B does nothing to stop fertilization, but prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterus wall. In essence, it causes an abortion.

This quote is incorrect. If it were, anti-abortion advocates wouldn’t have a problem with Plan B. Plan B does nothing to stop fertilization, but prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterus wall. In essence, it causes an abortion.

Spacen on February 3, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Pregnancy is generally defined as occurring upon implantation, not conception. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, so Plan B technically does not cause an abortion.

However, you are correct that Peter Weber is wrong about Plan B merely preventing fertilization. He probably heard it prevented pregnancy, and he made the same assumption you made.

That is not where the divide exists, Ed. Everyone agrees the embryo is a human embryo. The disagreement is as to whether or not the human embryo is a person (human being), and, as it develops, whether or not the human fetus with fingers and toes and a brain is a person.
fadetogray on February 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

The argument has changed. Pro-aborts used to say it was just a blob of tissue and not human. They lost that argument, because of science and common sense, so they changed their argument. That has only happened in the last 5-10 years or so.

Well, let’s see… 2008 minus 15 years or so… That means the parents of the people now starting to factor into abortion statistics would have been born in the 70s… So this is the first generation of those born to people born since Roe…

Could it also be that the pro-abortion side has killed off a good portion of those–their offspring–they would have transmitted their pro-abortion values to? Meanwhile, pro-life people have allowed their offspring to live and accept and act on their values?

I don’t mean at all to imply it’s deserved by those who have been killed–that they definitely would have had abortions themselves so it’s good in some twisted way. Not at all. But it just seems logical that a movement based on killing off the next generation would experience a diminishment in members as it’s most likely future advocates are killed off and that that movement would be eclipsed in numbers eventually by a movement whose numbers are not thinned out prematurely.

It’s not a time to celebrate.
Whether it’s a million children per year murdered, or even if the number was to shrink to “only” dozens, until abortion-on-demand is outlawed, the USA will continue to have innocent blood on its hands.